ficers as to
the right of dissenting Protestant ministers, resident in Canada,
to partake of the lands directed by the Act of the 31st George
III., c. 31, to be reserved as a provision for the support of a
Protestant clergy, I have now to state that they are of opinion
that though the provisions made by the 31st George III., c. 31, ss.
36 and 42, for the support and maintenance of a Protestant clergy,
are not confined solely to the Church of England, but may be
extended also to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, yet that
they do not extend to dissenting ministers, since the terms
Protestant clergy can apply only to the Protestant clergy
recognized and established by law.

It is thus clear that the question of the right of different Protestant
denominations to participate in the benefit of the clergy reserves did
not originate in any claims or agitation commenced by the clergy of the
Church of Scotland; that as early as the beginning of 1819, (only four
years after the close of the last American War, during which, as the
Bishop truly says, "the attachment of the inhabitants to the British
empire was a second time signally displayed,") there was "a lively
feeling throughout the Province" on the subject. The first Loyalist
settlers, and their immediate descendants, were opposed to the Bishop's
narrow construction of the Act 31st George III., chapter 31; their
representatives in the Legislative Assembly maintained invariably the
liberal construction of the Act; the select committee of the House of
Commons in 1828, on the Civil Government of Canada, after taking
evidence as to the intentions of the original framers of the law,
expressed the same opinion, and that opinion was ultimately confirmed by
the decision of the twelve judges in 1840. The Bishop is, therefore, as
much at fault in his facts on this point, as he is in the language he
employs in reference to Imperial legal opinions, and an Imperial Act of
Parliament.

It now becomes my duty to examine another large class of statements,
which I have read with great surprise and pain; and which are, if
possible, less excusable than those which I have already noticed. I
refer to the Bishop's statements in regard to the influence of the union
of the two Canadas on the votes and proceedings of the Legislative
Assembly of the united Province, on the question of the clergy reserves.

The Bishop, in his letter to Lord J